Talk:Ranjitha

Untitled
07:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the original name of the actor(claimed as Sri Valli on wikipedia) as it is unverifiable. Further, given that there is a current unverified issue that the actor;s name has been alleged regarding the scandal with a self styled godman, I believe that in the interest of privacy and safety concerns that we should remove her non-screen name.

Each time I have edited it and my changes are reverted.

Kindly respect the person's situation and remove her unverified name Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaihochowdry (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not unverified. she says so in her interview . You tried to make it look like unverified by removing the reference here. This is not a privacy issue - she is known by her professional name more (her facebook, myspace, profiles and blog are in her professional name) and including her birth name does not infringe her privacy in anyway. And we have not included the "video incident" at all - as it is unverified speculation (see discussion below). So tell me removing her first telugu film, as you did here is also protecting her privacy?. I have no idea why you are doing this, but i don't think it is for "protecting" the subject's privacy. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also please note I have not put back the "spouse" information that you removed, as i thought it was irrelevant for the article and involved the privacy of the spouse. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

recent video
In 2010, a sex tape surfaced allegedly showing Ranjitha with Swami Nithyanandahttp://www.slate.com/id/2249853/pagenum/all

I wanted to see what other editors think, myself I don't think it should be added, she has denied it and it is not actually confirmed to be her at all, for example see the BBC after so much reporting and her name being thrown around on the Internet and reported elsewhere the BBC still does not name her at all http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8594250.stm the article is from the 30 march. IMO she should get the same editorial protection as a living person here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rob. After a month it is still only "alleged". Unless she confirms it herself or a video forensics team says so to the court hearing the case, this should be kept out out of the article.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because it is still "alleged" she is still part of the whole thing because she was the one who was labelled. Therefore it should be part of her article but also should be kept away from POV. She most obviously won't confirm it herself because of humiliation. The news deserves to be part of her article. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BLP policy is pretty much clear on this - it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment Even if the issue is included, it should not get more than a single line in a ten line bio for balance. I am removing your additions for now. IIf) we are going to add something about the controvers, then let us work out a draft here by consensus and then add it --Sodabottle (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning her husband's name
Pinging @Gotitbro who added the name again. I've removed her husband's name from the article per WP:LPNAME, to prevent his privacy and since he is a non-notable person it won't contribute much to the understanding of the article. I've not removed the mention of her marriage and divorce which is relevant to the article's subject. Eevee01(talk) 04:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)